[rushking]

Judging by past winners, I say I like Hugo better.

[Mithfânion]

the Hugo seems to have more prestige yes.

[Hobbit]

The Hugo is awarded by 'the masses', chosen by members of the annual Worldcon (although Wikipedia points out that in the most recent awards only about 700 of several thousand Worldcon members actually vote).

The Nebula Awards are awarded by the members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA); again, it's not that big a group.

So: Hugos = fans; Nebulas = writers. (The two are not always inclusive/exclusive!)

But people tend to remember the Hugo rather than the Nebula. And I've been told that having Hugo Winner / Nebula winner on a book can still help sell books.

Hobbit

[Macklyn]

Don't know, don't care.
I've read books that have won awards that I thought just plain sucked.
How many books win awards that don't sell for Jack?
I think the people who hand out these awards are all too often hi-brow literary professorial snobs who have little in common with the average reader.

[KatG]

The Nebula used to be considered the more prestigious, at least in science fiction, because it is a juried award decided by a writer's peers. The Hugo was also very prestigious, but was more people's choice. But I don't know if that's the case today or not. It seems like all the awards -- the Nebula, the Hugo, the World Fantasy Award, the Clarke Award -- have become less important to fans over the last decade or so.

[BrianC]

I chalk that up to the democratizing effect of the internet. Forums like this now allow readers to interact directly,to discuss, to propound, to attack and defend the merits of the writers and their works. Those readers whomight have paid attention to awards in the past no longer need their mediating effect, though that does not mean the awards themselves are anachronisms.

[Hobbit]

There's also so many more awards around these days; but these two are to my mind the most recognisable in SF/Fantasy.

Hobbit

[Phellim]

I don't really care about awards, and would take more notice about what people here are talking about.

But as I'm primarily a fantasy reader, I'll have to say the Hugo.

[Larry]

I'm probably biased, but I favor the World Fantasy Awards over the other two, because the five-person panel judging the previous years' releases (minus two voted upon by those who've attended at least one of the past two conventions) has tended to select books that for the most part of a relatively high quality standard. The Nebulas can be swayed, according to some, by "block voting" for those who are friendly with the voter, while the Hugos are dominated for the most part by those who are regulars at the WorldCons - the 700 or so having a large number of those.

It just depends on how one wants to view the selection process as to whether or not they are prestigious or not these days. I happen to think the WFAs are more indicative of my own reading choices, so I pay closer attention to those, although starting this upcoming week, I'm going to try to read/review each of the major American awards (uncertain as to whether or not I can get my hands on all the BSFWA Award nominee books before its announcement date). I would imagine after reading them all that I ought to have a more informed opinion as to which winning book I liked most, no?

[Werthead]

The Locus Awards should also be strongly considered, but between the two, the Hugo is easily more prestigious. Hopefully I should be voting in them next year as well (and at the moment it's going to Ian McDonald's Brasyl, easily).